Author
Topic: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2 (Read 15260 times)

I tried a 35mm f2 zeiss recently at a digital expo. I have to get one now after putting the files into lightroom to have a decent look. I don't do video but the out of focus areas are so silky smooth, even on my 1.6x crop 7D. I don't 'need' af all the time, so it would be perfect. And as mentioned above, the focus ring is amazing to use. However its the optic I care about more.

Wish the f1.4 version wasn't massively more expensive!

Logged

In the end, only the image matters... Not what equipment you used to get there.

My 35 f/2 is a used lens from a shop in Scotland called Ffordes. They are not the cheapest around but I have found their quality and service to be excellent. It was complete with everything including the hand signed quality check. There is also a f/1.4 35 but that wasn't available used and was much more expensive. I can only imagine how good it is. This is plenty good enough from my early shooting, and I agree with the feeling about the focus ring, it's very sweet indeed nice feedback from it.

The sun is out for a change and so had a play around outside in the back garden while our dog Caesar had a run around (the bonus being that once he'd tired himself a bit I could get him to sit still for a second to use the manual focus on him!

I tried a 35mm f2 zeiss recently at a digital expo. I have to get one now after putting the files into lightroom to have a decent look. I don't do video but the out of focus areas are so silky smooth, even on my 1.6x crop 7D. I don't 'need' af all the time, so it would be perfect. And as mentioned above, the focus ring is amazing to use. However its the optic I care about more.

Wish the f1.4 version wasn't massively more expensive!

Silky smooth? O.oExcept for the Makro Planar, Zeiss lenses are known to have very nervous bokeh. Zeiss users claim it to be one distinctive trait of their lenses to have a bokeh "with some personality". You can see it quite clearly in the photos posted by itsnotmeyouknow.There are plenty of reasons to want a Zeiss lens, but smooth bokeh leaves me quite puzzled. By the way the Planar 50mm f/1.4 is about 725$/600€.

Well ok, now that there's some photo's up, yes I can see it. I think that's pretty nice though in general. I personally would not classify it as nervous bokeh, to me that bokeh is quite beautiful.

The bokeh is only one reason I think I want one, now that I've looked its also cheaper than the 35mm L canon so that's another plus. I don't know, different people, different things. That bokeh to me is nice. Plus the shots I took were also pretty razor sharp too, another even more critical area to me.

Logged

In the end, only the image matters... Not what equipment you used to get there.

Well ok, now that there's some photo's up, yes I can see it. I think that's pretty nice though in general. I personally would not classify it as nervous bokeh, to me that bokeh is quite beautiful.

The bokeh is only one reason I think I want one, now that I've looked its also cheaper than the 35mm L canon so that's another plus. I don't know, different people, different things. That bokeh to me is nice. Plus the shots I took were also pretty razor sharp too, another even more critical area to me.

The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is another extremely good and cheap alternative Bokeh is of course a matter of taste. Being nervous doesn't mean being bad But I prefer the more buttery one from the 50 and 100mm makro planar

I have been trying to decide between the zeiss 1.4 and the canon 1.4L i think this thread confirmed I will go for the canon L that nervous bokeh will probably get on my nerves a bit

Will it make you nervous? (sorry the play on words was too tempting). I'm not too bothered about the bokeh personally as I don't get the obsession with shooting wide open. It's like constantly driving a ferrari at top speed - it won't perform at it's best or make the nicest of noises. Bokeh is really for telephoto lenses in my view, as using side angles for portraits is rarely flattering and using narrow depth of field is rarely useful in wide angle shooting. YMMV of course, but that's my view. I only shot at f/2 because someone asked me. In normal use the aperture rarely gets wider than f/5.6. It always makes me cringe inside when someone proudly says on a forum's gallery: "all shot wide open" as if it's a badge of honour.

The 35 f/2 CZ is a lovely lens with a great feel and weight. I'd rather have it than the 35L. (And bokeh is overrated and overrused). I'd rather see a sharp subject using the lens's strengths, of which it has many. It spends much of its time on my 5D3 (much like any new toy) and stays generally between f/8 and f/11. Diffraction? At these apertures you'd have to be pixel peeping. Pixel peeping is the curse of the digital age and should be avoided. One doesn't look at the Mona Lisa at brush stroke level, why should a photo be any different.

not to mention they are such awesome looking lenses with epic build quality.

since i have the 16-35 f2.8L II i am chasing the fast 35 specifically for low light shooting where i'll be chasing wide open to grab max available light, 35 f1.4 on one body and siggy 85 f1.4 on the otherso bokeh is very important for my desired uses for the fast 35.

if shooting stopped down i'll probably stay with the 16-35 for the flexability of focal range

nice. I'm considering going for more Zeiss glass. It is not that nikon/canon glass isn't good, but Zeiss is in another league completely and I feel I'm getting my money's worth in optics instead of a ton of electronics and secondary crap from nikon/canon that just adds cost and things to break.